Wednesday, April 17, 2013

Apple's US 7,479,949

In re-exam 90/012,308 , there was an examiner interview on Feb. 22, 2013. The "summary" mailed on March 4, 2013 notes "Nothing was agreed upon."
There is a 102(b) rejection over the Wakai reference. There is much discussion of "heuristics."

In their response of 4 March 2013, Apple cites Ex parte Lee (BPAI 2012) for silence only showing what a reference fails to describe.

Peter J. Yim of Morrison and Foerster signed the response paper on behalf of Apple.

0 Comments:

About Me

I'm a patent lawyer located in central New Jersey. I have a J.D. from the University of Chicago and a Ph.D. from Stanford University, where I studied graphite intercalation compounds at the Center for Materials Research. I worked at Exxon Corporate Research in areas ranging from engine deposits through coal and petroleum to fullerenes. An article that I wrote in The Trademark Reporter, 1994, 84, 379-407 on color trademarks was cited by Supreme Court in Qualitex v. Jacobson, 514 US 159 (1995) and the methodology was adopted
in the Capri case in N.D. Ill. An article that I wrote on DNA profiling was cited by the Colorado Supreme Court (Shreck case) and a Florida appellate court (Brim case). I was interviewed by NHK-TV about the Jan-Hendrik Schon affair. I am developing ipABC, an entity that combines rigorous IP analytics with study of business models, to optimize utilization of intellectual property. I can be reached at C8AsF5 at yahoo.com.